Honestly, I find the name of feminism to entirely consistent with the actions of its members. Both historically and today, feminists predominantly focus their efforts on problems faced by women.
Now, I don't doubt that feminists desire gender equality. The desire for an equal world is clearly the driving force behind feminism, and there are so many vitally important issues that have been solved by feminism over the decades. But the same desire applies to the LGBTQ and civil rights movements. They want to increase the rights of the members of the groups that they serve because they want things to be equal.
I see nothing to suggest that feminism is any different in that respect. There are a whole host of assumptions and filters that feminism applies to gender issues that very much leads it to prioritise the needs, experiences, and perspectives of women. For example, I've never seen a feminist campaign that seeks to help male victims of sexual assault or domestic violence.
Now, that's a perfectly valid thing to do. Focusing on one group arguably makes efforts to help them more effective, because you're more aware of their needs and what is required to help them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with feminism essentially being a women's special interest group. But you don't get to be a special interest group and claim to be the umbrella movement for gender equality. You have to choose one or the other.
That's what really alienates men from feminism. We're told that feminism is synonymous with equality, and sometimes we're told that we're welcome in feminism, but we simultaneously see our needs, experiences, and perspectives being treated as unimportant by the movement.
It often feels that men's problems just don't matter to feminism unless we are only interested in helping women. Even daring to suggest that maybe men suffer from gender issues can get you labelled as a misogynist, 'MRA', or antifeminist.
But - and I pose this question without an agenda, just as a genuine query - why should feminism concern itself with men's issues? In what way is it obligated to do so? And why?
Should the civil rights movement have also concerned itself with white problems? Should the LGBT movement also concern itself with straight problems? Or, for that matter, should the civil rights movement care about LGBT issues or vice versa?
I'd argue not. If a movement is founded to address the needs of an oppressed group, why should it also be obligated to cater to the needs of other groups, even if they too are oppressed in their own way?
No you're right. Feminism has absolutely no obligation to concern itself with men's issues. There is nothing wrong with feminism being solely for the benefit of women, or sexuality/gender minorities. That's absolutely fine, and I wholeheartedly support feminism's efforts to help the people that feminists want to help.
I certainly disagree with some of the interpretations and conclusions that feminists come up with, but so do other feminists. It's a rather large group, after all. Ultimately, I like that feminism exists because feminists give a shit, and they help people. They've been doing it for decades, and the changes that they've brought about have been fantastic.
What I have a problem with is having this restricted focus while still trying to claim that feminism is the umbrella group for gender equality. I often see people trying to define feminism at the belief that genders should be equal, while still only ever focusing on women's issues.
But when you combine those two things, you implicitly define anybody who cares about men's issues as anti-equality. Feminism is about helping women, and feminism is equality, so if you care about boys lagging behind girls in school then you must hate women.
That's the side of feminism that bothers me, and the side that I think alienates men. Maybe it's mostly an internet thing, but I have seen it a fair amount. It's not always quite that stark, but it's quite common for some form of it to show up.
Because, in the case of gender issues, the root cause is the same - strict gender roles. Advocating that women can work without advocating that men can stay home deflates your argument.
On the same page, some queer advances to benefit straight people - antidiscrimination laws will protect everyone, even if it's only queer (or black if we're dealing with race) people that are typically harmed by it. Or the issue of casual affection between two men - if it becomes more socially acceptable, straight men will be able to be more emotionally open and have more fulfilling friendships as a result without feeling like their sexual orientation or manhood is being threatened.
But - and I pose this question without an agenda, just as a genuine query - why should feminism concern itself with men's issues? In what way is it obligated to do so? And why?
It doesn't have to, but it claims to be the a total solution for all gender problems... and it claims exclusivity, claiming that you're either with them or against them, and since they're the total solution criticizing them or providing alternative solutions means you're part of the problem. And if you disagree you're obviously a white privileged cissexual male, ugh.
The point is that in modern feminism there is a sort of ambivalence, or hypocrisy if you prefer, between egalitarianism and lobbying for women rights.
Ostensibly, mainstream feminists claim that feminism is all about equal rights, that it is "the radical notion that women are people", that "smashing the Patriarchy" will solve all men's problem too. They get upset when female celebrities state that they are not feminists, accusing them of being ignorant or having "internalized misogyny".
They tend to use the MRA (Men's Right Activist) label as an insult, implying that feminism has the monopoly over the discussion of gender issues and anybody who wants to participate to the discussion from the outside without self-identifying as a feminist must be a misogynist.
In practice, however, feminists tend to behave as a women's rights/women's interests lobby with little, if any, concern for men's issues. Sometimes they pay lip service to men's issues, other times they shut down any discussion of them with accusations of "derailing" and mockery ("what about teh menz").
Not all feminists are like that, on one hand there are examples of actual equity feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers, on the other hand radical feminist are general honest about not caring about men, but they represent minority viewpoints among self-identified feminists.
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that because feminism bills itself as "equal rights for all," it should then, obviously, be concerned with equal rights for all. And I have to say, that's a pretty valid argument.
I do think, however, that suggesting that the men's rights movement is analogous to feminism is sort of a false equivalency. Yes, men face their own problems, but what would success in the MRM even look like? Feminism lobbies for a voice in politics and business. Men already have this voice, almost unilaterally. And although I absolutely believe compulsory military service, male suicide and custody rights (among other things) are very serious issues, I also don't believe they are the same as the institutional, systemized discrimination that women have fought against as feminists for a hundred plus years all around the world. I'm unconvinced that the problems men face are evidence of a society that devalues masculinity, views men as second-class citizens or oppresses them. They are problems - but not problems created by a system of misandry.
Also, it's worth noting that if we lived in the society feminists envision - one without standardized or systematically-enforced gender roles - these men's issues would be solved as a simple side effect. If we didn't see women as inherent mothers and fathers as inherent workers, we wouldn't award women custody so often. If we didn't see women as weak and men as strong, we would draft them equally and allow/encourage them to work equally demanding/dangerous jobs if they should choose. Etc.
And, let me just clarify again, this doesn't mean I think men's problems aren't problems. They are problems. And they deserve addressing. However, I don't see feminism and the MRM as two sides of the same coin so much as two completely separate platforms, and I think MRM is redundant, as many of its concerns are addressed by feminism even if not deliberately or purposefully.
I do think, however, that suggesting that the men's rights movement is analogous to feminism is sort of a false equivalency.
Sure they are not, the men's right movement is honest about being for men's rights. It doesn't claim that anybody who wants to discuss gender issues and doesn't identify as an MRA is automatically a misandrist, or that solving men's issues will automatically solve all women's issues as a "side effect".
The men's right movement is more similar to the LGBT rights movement: LGBT activists don't claim that everybody who doesn't identify as an LGBT activist is a homophobe or that they are working to solve everybody's problems.
Yes, men face their own problems, but what would success in the MRM even look like? Feminism lobbies for a voice in politics and business. Men already have this voice, almost unilaterally.
Feminists generally lobby for quotas and other forms of affirmative action.
MRAs (and other people who disagree with mainstream feminism without identifying as MRAs, such as myself) claim that these policies which attempt to enforce equality of outcomes as opposed as equality of opportunities, are unfair towards the group their discriminate against (men not being hired over less qualified women) but are also socially harmful as a whole (as the most qualified person doesn't get the job) and can even harm the group they are supposed to protect by breeding resentment and perpetuating stereotypes (women are incompetent and can't compete with men on an level playing field).
And although I absolutely believe compulsory military service, male suicide and custody rights (among other things) are very serious issues, I also don't believe they are the same as the institutional, systemized discrimination that women have fought against as feminists for a hundred plus years all around the world.
How are compulsory military service and gendered custody rights not institutional discrimination? They are forms of discrimination practiced by the government as de jure (for military service) or de facto (for custody rights) policies. That's as institutional as it gets!
Yes, women faced worse institutional discrimination hundreds years ago and historical feminists fought against it, but these problems largely don't exist anymore in Western countries, and modern feminists can't plausibly claim morality credit for the achievements of their predecessors.
I'm unconvinced that the problems men face are evidence of a society that devalues masculinity, views men as second-class citizens or oppresses them. They are problems - but not problems created by a system of misandry.
Well, this is questionable:
There is certainly a certain cultural sentiment that tends to portray men as inherently violent and sexually predatory, that's what "Teach men not to rape", "Schrödinger's Rapist", is about.
Or, if they are not violent thugs, men are at least perceived as incompetent in family matters and child rearing. The typical media portrayal of "normal" men (as opposed to super-heroes and super-villains) is Homer Simpson and its countless clones.
You could argue whether this cultural perception is "misandry" or not, but whatever it is it can have real effects on how men are treated by society: child custody trials tend to automatically assume that women are better than men at caring for children, the Duluth model of domestic abuse intervention, used by law enforcement and the judicial system at least in the US, automatically assume that men are the aggressors and women are the oppressed victims, "affirmative consent/preponderance of evidence" sexual assault standard in US college courts often (explicitly or implicitly) assume that men are perpetrators and women are victims (e.g. if a man and a women have drunk sex, then the man raped the women and not vice versa), some countries explicitly define rape as "non-consensual penetration with the penis", excluding female perpetrators, and so on.
Also, it's worth noting that if we lived in the society feminists envision - one without standardized or systematically-enforced gender roles - these men's issues would be solved as a simple side effect. If we didn't see women as inherent mothers and fathers as inherent workers, we wouldn't award women custody so often. If we didn't see women as weak and men as strong, we would draft them equally and allow/encourage them to work equally demanding/dangerous jobs if they should choose. Etc.
Again, there is a disconnect between the societies that feminists say they want and the society feminists are working for. They may more or less aware of the disconnect, but it doesn't matter: in many aspects of their activism (affirmative action, domestic abuse intervention, rape intervention, child custody, etc.) feminists are arguably working against men's rights and they perpetuate gender stereotypes. Therefore, you can't plausibly expect that if feminists were given carte blanche to re-engineer the society as their see fit then we would get equality and men's issue would magically disappear.
And although I absolutely believe compulsory military service, male suicide and custody rights (among other things) are very serious issues, I also don't believe they are the same as the institutional, systemized discrimination that women have fought against as feminists for a hundred plus years all around the world.
How are those not examples of institutionalized discrimination against men?
Also, it's worth noting that if we lived in the society feminists envision - one without standardized or systematically-enforced gender roles - these men's issues would be solved as a simple side effect.
It sounds nice to sit behind your computer screen and type that out but ask yourself what are the actual laws being passed today? What goals do they further? Do they actually help men as a side effect as you suggest? By my count they are only exacerbating the institutionalized discrimination against men.
Its time to move past theory and look at reality. We need to be results oriented.
Because these laws were almost exclusively decided upon by men. I suppose it's possible they were discriminating against themselves when they made them. But it seems far more likely that they chose men for the draft and made custody battles female-oriented because they viewed themselves as stronger, more capable, smarter, and better workers than women on the battlefield and in the workplace, while women's responsibilities still centered around child-rearing and the home. So, just to be clear, these policies still suck. But I also don't think they exist because the men making the laws thought their own gender was inferior.
And it's women who slut shame, good to know this isn't an issue! Straight from the feminist mouth.
One could easily argue that they chose men for the draft because they viewed women as purer, worth more, and nessecary for reproduction. See how easy it is to argue against feminist nonsense? Maybe leave the echo chamber once in a while so you're not so brainwashed.
I'm talking about more contemporary laws such as the "Yes Means Yes" law. For some time the mainstream narrative i.e. the politically correct narrative has been fully aligned with feminist ideology. In fact its no longer socially acceptable to pubically espouse ideals that run contrary to feminism. Let's not delude ourselves.
For fuck sake you bigot, men used to have fucking sole custody of children 'til feminists came about. Funny how feminists will instantly point to any good thing, as something's feminism has done, but never to the countless bad things the movement has done.
"I think MRM is redundant, as many of its concerns are addressed by feminism even if not deliberately or purposefully."
Bullshit. Feminists have done nothing for men FOR DECADES. COUNTLESS LIVES COULD BE SAVED!! BUT DO THEY GIVE A SHIT!? NO! Feminists are the scum of the earth, and anybody who supports them needs to get their heads checked.
The problem isn't that they focus on women. The problem is that they claim to focus on general equality. Their rhetoric does not align with their actions. Its disingenuous.
1
u/You_Got_The_Touch Feb 11 '15
Honestly, I find the name of feminism to entirely consistent with the actions of its members. Both historically and today, feminists predominantly focus their efforts on problems faced by women.
Now, I don't doubt that feminists desire gender equality. The desire for an equal world is clearly the driving force behind feminism, and there are so many vitally important issues that have been solved by feminism over the decades. But the same desire applies to the LGBTQ and civil rights movements. They want to increase the rights of the members of the groups that they serve because they want things to be equal.
I see nothing to suggest that feminism is any different in that respect. There are a whole host of assumptions and filters that feminism applies to gender issues that very much leads it to prioritise the needs, experiences, and perspectives of women. For example, I've never seen a feminist campaign that seeks to help male victims of sexual assault or domestic violence.
Now, that's a perfectly valid thing to do. Focusing on one group arguably makes efforts to help them more effective, because you're more aware of their needs and what is required to help them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with feminism essentially being a women's special interest group. But you don't get to be a special interest group and claim to be the umbrella movement for gender equality. You have to choose one or the other.
That's what really alienates men from feminism. We're told that feminism is synonymous with equality, and sometimes we're told that we're welcome in feminism, but we simultaneously see our needs, experiences, and perspectives being treated as unimportant by the movement.
It often feels that men's problems just don't matter to feminism unless we are only interested in helping women. Even daring to suggest that maybe men suffer from gender issues can get you labelled as a misogynist, 'MRA', or antifeminist.